In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 100 each on over 6,400 petitioners who challenged a matter already settled by the Supreme Court in 2018, describing their legal action as “luxury litigation.”
These petitioners had cleared the Teachers Eligibility Test (Primary Level) Examination-2011, and their results were declared on 25.11.2011, 30.11.2011, and 29.01.2015. They approached the High Court demanding the selection process be restarted in accordance with the advertisement dated 7th December 2012, and also called for the re-evaluation of OMR sheets, specifically disqualifying candidates who used whiteners.
The Supreme Court in State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak & Ors., reported in (2018) 12 SCC 595, had already decided on the issue. The Court had held that although in normal circumstances, selection under the 2012 advertisement could have continued, due to interim orders and appointments made during the pendency of the case, further selection must be done only through a fresh advertisement.
“We are not inclined to disturb the appointments of 66,655 teachers made pursuant to interim orders. The State is at liberty to fill up the remaining vacancies after issuing a fresh advertisement.”
— Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak & Ors. (2018)
This judgment left no room for reopening or re-evaluation based on the 2012 advertisement.
Petitioners, represented by several senior advocates including Sri Ashok Khare, Sri Rameshwar Prasad Mishra, and Sri Jamil Ahmad Ansari, argued that the Supreme Court judgment did not explicitly bar the selection process under the 2012 advertisement.
Their main prayer was:
“Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to start the selection process as per Advertisement dated 07.12.2012.”
They also sought quashing of the test results and re-evaluation of OMR sheets, particularly challenging the validity of using whiteners during the exam.
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, after carefully analyzing the Supreme Court’s directions, firmly rejected the plea.
The Court noted that the Supreme Court had already made it clear that:
- Further recruitment should be done via a fresh advertisement.
- Appointments made under interim orders had been protected.
“Prayer of the petitioners being contrary to the observations and direction passed by Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak (supra), are therefore, rejected.”
— Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
In a strong rebuke, the High Court labeled the entire batch of writ petitions as “luxury litigation.”
“In present circumstances, Court is constrained to observe that these litigations appear to be luxury litigations... petitioners (6402 in numbers) were also conscious of these facts... still they filed writ petitions.”
— Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
The Court expressed concern over the wastage of judicial time, especially when the matter had already been settled conclusively by the highest court.
To discourage such repetitive and baseless litigation, the Court imposed a cost of ₹100 per petitioner. It directed that:
- Each petitioner must pay the cost within one week to the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad.
- The deponent of the affidavit in each writ petition shall be personally responsible for ensuring payment.
- If there's a default, the Registrar General of the Court will initiate recovery proceedings.
“All Writ petitioners shall pay Rs.100/- each as cost since these litigations have wasted crucial time of this Court.”
— Allahabad High Court Order dated 04.04.2025
All writ petitions were dismissed, and the Court emphasized that the law is clear and binding, and wasting judicial resources on already settled matters is unacceptable.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Yadav And 2041 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 10478 of 2022]
